>>Kevin, just as cavalry was already obsolete in WWI but some generals were deterrmined that a few glorious charges would end the war, the days of the big guns and big batallions are obsolete as well. You can nuke the entire middle east to a 2-foot-thick slab of glass and thereby win a resounding traditional victory, but a handful of dedicated survivors with a few small glass vials can still terrorise your entire population and make people afraid to use the subway, visit the mall, send their kids to school.
>>
>>That's what your government is grappling with. The hard question is WHY. Why would anybody want to do this to you. What must be done to remove the incentive. If you look at the idea of nuking or smashing in with overwhelming force, you'll see why some people are hesitant to do that in 2007.
>
>There are always people, especially if you talk about 'few survivors' who would like to kill you just for fun, or some other reason that's doesn't merit 'why' question.
>By the way, I disagree that military ways are obsolete. Iraq situation (i believe that would be your example) is not a military fault. It is an illustration what happens when army (after winning the war) is invited to perform police (or any other non-related) functions.

I think that's a gross over-simplification, Ed.
After any war the conquering party has a DUTY (in international law) to keep law and order so that the subdued citizens can resume life.
The USSR had a tough time doing that in Afghanistan, though I don't know why. But it is pretty clear that the U.S. erred with Iraq by not having sufficient troops there to execute that duty effectively.
"Police" work is integral to victory. The U.S. did not prepare for that part of their job.